I know people disagreed with me on the other thread that the quality of the production matters, but it really does.

Here's why:

This was a ludicrously bad, two-bit nothing of a production, like some of the less-great things you'd see at a 48-hour film fest or other amateur show.

This was not some high-profile documentary that was all over the news and getting reviewed by the NYT.

What this means is that any idiot with a camcorder who posts on youtube could suddenly have the wrath of the Egyptian GOVERNMENT (not just random crazies) on their head.

I mean, can you imagine? An international arrest warrent for this tripe?

This isn't the video equivalent of Rushdie, which was scary enough in its own right. This goes even further.

I know I'm far from the first to say it, but the quality of the film wasn't the point, and as many have pointed out, the film existed on YouTube for a long time before any of this trouble started. If it wasn't the stupid film, it could have been anything else, even our Gracious Hostess's blog entries, being blamed for the unrest. Like they say, any excuse will serve a tyrant, so it's useless to try to appease tyrants.

Why does the thought of nuclear craters where some country's capitals used to be does not sound upsetting any more?

Europe has been infiltrated and overtaken by the multicultural idiots. I have no problem with immigrants. I have a problem with changing the country to adapt to the immigrants. You wanted to come here -- deal with it or go back.

RPM, the quality of the film IS important, and the fact that it was around for a long time is important, too.

Because it means that even some dinky little thing can get -actual authorities- after you, even a long time after the fact.

Remember, the Egyptian GOVERNMENT is getting international warrants for these guys. How far off is it that some stupid comment or offhand remark on this blog, or on youtube, or on FB, or whatever, could get you into trouble?

BTW I agree that the riots would have happened anyways.

Why does the thought of nuclear craters where some country's capitals used to be does not sound upsetting any more?

No, wrong spot.

Just turn Mecca into a glass crater. That will send them into a tizzy, as it is alleged that Allah will not allow the holy sites to be destroyed.

the quality of the film IS important

You keep saying that.

When you bring a subjective measuring stick into a freedom of speech judgement, then it boils down to you think you have freedom of speech, but you really don't because your speech will never pass the quality test.

The quality of the film doesn't matter.

People have a right to express their opinions in a form in keeping with their ability to communicate and in whatever means is available to them - with very few restrictions (e.g., libel, slander, "shouting fire when there is no fire").

Whether it's a published novel (Satanic Verses), a pathetically bad piece of schlock (Piss Christ), a reasonably good piece of art (Guernica), or the barely coherent street corner ramblings of a semi-literate hillbilly - the means of that expression should not be used as a justification to restrict the expression.

Not everyone can afford professional editing.

Freedom of expression is something we value in this country (even though the Constitution only specifically protects freedom of speech and of the press).

When the quality and/or distribution of an expression becomes a standard by which it can be judged and restricted by the state, freedom of expression is dead.

====================

The actress in this film claims that new dialogue was dubbed in after the actors had been paid and gone home. Perhaps she has grounds for a lawsuit.

Of course, if it were being considered for an Oscar, she might be laying claim to having spoken the words herself (perhaps even having ad-libbed some of them).

====================

Everybody who is claiming that this film was inciting violence and should be restrictable since the producers knew violence could result are missing the point.

Do you really want to send the message to Christians, Jews, Hindus, and even Scientologists that the way to get the government to protect your religion from being mocked is to publicly murder people?

Are we really ready to watch Tom Cruise or John Travolta go on a three-state killing spree 'cause someone burned a copy of Dianetics or panned Battlefield Earth?

Would this be a better place if Roger Ebert were forced into hiding? Okay, maybe it would. But that's beside the point.

IRA, I keep saying it because people keep missing my point.

"When you bring a subjective measuring stick into a freedom of speech judgement"

NO. This is not what I am doing. I am NOT SAYING THAT THE QUALITY OF THE SPEECH SHOULD BE A QUALIFYING FACTOR IN WHETHER OR NOT THE SPEECH SHOULD BE SAID. -YOU- are saying I'm saying that.

OK.

Let me try to get my point across more clearly as I am obviously failing miserably.

OK, a lot of people would be behind arresting the leaders of a large klan rally. (No, not me. A lot of people) It's one of those big, obvious things. People always start crying for blood at the big obvious things.

Very few people would care about Joe the weirdo in his Mom's basement who writes an aryans rule livejournal post. You wouldn't get huge protests for him and people crying for his blood.

People crying for Joe the weirdo's blood brings it to a whole new level of "Holy What the Fuck this is Scary".

That's what is happening.

People crying for the blood of leaders is scary.
People crying out for the blood of random nobodies is HOLY SHIT FUCKING INSANE SCARY.

THAT is why it is important that this happened over a dinky little film. Because it raises it to a whole new level of insanity. It makes it much, much, worse.

How can you not see that protests over a random nobody are so much scarier than protests over a major production?

I'm not saying speech should be banned on its quality. I'm saying crappy no-name speech causing international riots is a million times scarier than high-profile stuff causing riots. I'm saying we should be very worried.

Now maybe the riots would have happened anyways, but the fact is this film did become a rallying point. And it's a crappy little thing. They really had to dig to find it. How does that not scare you?

AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE BANNED BECAUSE IT IS CRAPPY.

I AM NOT SAYING QUALITY STUFF THAT COULD ACTUALLY INFLUENCE PEOPLE SHOULD BE BANNED.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING BANNING ANY SPEECH GOOD OR BAD.

I'm fucking pissed because I've been having arguments all week with the locals defending these loser's right to freedom of speech and you guys are saying I'm saying the opposite when I'm not.

I'm saying the fact that it's a crappy movie inspired such anger is extremely fucking extra scary.

NicoleK -- Now I see where you're going with all this. I think we were talking past each other, maybe.

Not that that's ever happened on a threadument before...

NicoleK has a very good point.

NicoleK, think back 5 years to schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons, who barely escaped with her life after naming the class teddy bear Muhammad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case

At one point, a mob of 10,000 was screaming "KILL HER! KILL HER!" in the streets right outside her jail cell. And she never even remotely intended to cause any offense. In light of that, there's nothing surprising about the reaction to this film.

> I'm saying the fact that it's a crappy movie
> inspired such anger is extremely fucking
> extra scary.

OK, so here's a new frontier for our disagreement: I think this merely scary, not extra scary.

Two reasons:

First, lefties (and others) often describe things as "scary" when they can't or won't say exactly what they object to. So rather than say 'I'm certain that John McCain wants to make abortion illegal', they'll say 'John McCain's position on abortion is very scary'.

It's sloppy language. These "scary" things are often critical matters, both in the sense of being consequential and in the meaning of requiring nuance and reflection. We shouldn't get in the habit of talking of them with inchoate shivers of opinion. Answering these people will require courage and clarity. How they make us feel isn't going to be a good guide.

Secondly, I think you understand full well that this fight is coming. The people who are angry — or who are feigning anger – over these materials are naive and provincial. They don't understand, but their bad behavior must be contained until they're ready to live in modernity. And modernity isn't an acquired taste. Once they know these blessing are available to them, they'll come around. Two thirds of the world already has.

There's nothing exotic about them. It's like toilet training... Once they figure out how it works, we're not going to have to clean up after every hillbilly who sees a new YouTube clip.

Until then we do what we have to do.

Meanwhile, it's all about the courage.

Because in modernity, things make sense.

I agree with Crid that the calling of this development as "Scary" is just a sloppy use of language. But I have to acknowlege that the trend of Religous Fundamentalism in the World is an alarming turn. With regards to the Muslim/Islamic world and the feelings of disrespect towards "Mohammad", I have to admit that I was suprised at the lasting effect is seems to be having.
But Crid as to your containing these people, that needs a bit of clarification for me. How exactly do you go about containing these radical ideas or more importantly how do we change there minds about them? I am not tryiing to be snide or anything of that nature, I am really interested in your thoughts to this concept.
For clarification, I am an American living and working in Germany for the last 20 years and am not able to have these types of discussions with my peers here, as they see the world with a different view (European mindset). This is not to say that there views are incorrect, I merely wish to try looking at a different perspective.

> I have to acknowlege that the trend of
> Religous Fundamentalism in the World is
> an alarming turn

No, there's been no "turn." The only "turn" is that we and the primitives are suddenly more aware of each other than we used to be. And for some of each group, we're more aware than we want to be.

But that awareness is evidence of modernity's exploding communications power and its irresistible allure. Western modernity is rolling down its path quite nicely nonetheless. It's old-time Islam that's appalled to learn that there are sacrilegious YouTube clips... Even though they don't actually know what a YouTube clip is. These people aren't completely plugged in, OK? They are not going to spend Monday waiting for the FedEx truck to deliver their new Iphone 5's.

No turn. This is a progression, with unremarkable fits and starts. It's hysteresis, and it's mundane... These are the conflicts that have happened across the globe (and throughout our own nation) as primitive culture has been invaded. There's nothing new about this.

> How exactly do you go about containing these
> radical ideas or more importantly how do we
> change there minds about them?

Thanks for asking!

1. Kill . (Only when necessary. The human project is an inclusive thing, but we've got several continent's worth of people who are poised to lead the best, most just, most educated, most productive lives in human history. [And get this— That even includes the women! I know, right?] Savages and cowards must not be allowed to interfere.)

2. Modernize.

And by the way, I'm pretty sure the European views are actually incorrect.

Are we really ready to watch Tom Cruise or John Travolta go on a three-state killing spree 'cause someone burned a copy of Dianetics or panned Battlefield Earth?

That be kinda hypocritical considering Travola was a part of that horrible Battlefeild Earth adaptation

"Now maybe the riots would have happened anyways, but the fact is this film did become a rallying point. And it's a crappy little thing. They really had to dig to find it. How does that not scare you?"

I'm not, because the film was not the cause of the riots. It was merely a pretext. Had that film never been made, exactly the same thing would have happened in exactly the same way, except that the pretext would have been something else. People who are determined to be offended by something will always find something to be offended by.

That be kinda hypocritical considering Travola was a part of that horrible Battlefeild Earth adaptation.

Huh?

Travolta was in the movie and, I think, produced it. The book was written by L. Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology).

So, if someone pans the move or the book - in this hypothetical world in which Scientologists are inclined to murder people who mock their religion - Travolta would be the logical candidate to murder them.

The movie ends 1/3 of the way into the book, and changes hunndereds of fairly important details

Ah. I never saw the movie nor read the book.

I tried to read Dianetics once, but it's harder to read than the Book of Mormon - and makes less sense.

I've tried to read a few of his works, there are a couple of instances of his instability which shine thru, but on the whole Battlefeild Earth is a worthwhile book